Objectivist or Subjectivist? Give Me a Break

[microstrip]

Surely that has been addressed before. Is there any reason that a blind test has to be short term?

It is related to short and long term auditory memory. The length of the test depends on what you are looking for, and surely the practical limitations. The best duration can even be determined experimentally - you carry tests to show the difference you are looking for using cases with positive differences and null differences with different time lengths. Then you analyze the data and choose as best the one that gives you more accurate results - a balance of more positive identifications and less spread around the results. Happily you do not have to do it every time - it was studied and analyzed by many people, you just have to dig in their papers.

Just one note - do not try to get in blind testing if you are not prepared to carry proper statistical analysis of it, and understand statistical requirements and limitations. Remember that only a few became millionaires in Massachusetts

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2011/07/31/a_lottery_game_with_a_windfall_for_a_knowing_few/?page=full

 

[MylesBAstor]

It is related to short and long term auditory memory. The length of the test depends on what you are looking for, and surely the practical limitations. The best duration can even be determined experimentally - you carry tests to show the difference you are looking for using cases with positive differences and null differences with different time lengths. Then you analyze the data and choose as best the one that gives you more accurate results - a balance of more positive identifications and less spread around the results. Happily you do not have to do it every time - it was studied and analyzed by many people, you just have to dig in their papers.

Just one note - do not try to get in blind testing if you are not prepared to carry proper statistical analysis of it, and understand statistical requirements and limitations. Remember that only a few became millionaires in Massachusetts

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2011/07/31/a_lottery_game_with_a_windfall_for_a_knowing_few/?page=full

But the problem is that the more you load/greater complexity your brain down with, the lower the perceptual capabilities.

 

[microstrip]

(...) And of course, Carver can make an amp with the same transfer function and power output for probably $20K retail (and make big money but there is the question of whether or not that would be copying ) if he wanted to.

Tom,

Do you really think that all the audio science of the world related to amplifiers converged in Bob Carver? That he acts as a black hole of amplifier knowledge and all other amplifier designers are just inferior people and audio science stopped at the time of the Carver challenge?

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Surely that has been addressed before. Is there any reason that a blind test has to be short term?

It depends on what you're testing. If you want to find out what you prefer without being influenced by its look, name, price, etc., set up your switching system and spend as much time listening as you like. Any conclusions you reach will be subjective anyway, and at least you will have removed the opportunity to be biased by the list of things you've blinded yourself to.

But if you want to find out if the difference between two things is audible, quick switching is considered a necessity by audiologists and research professionals, if not by Audiophiles. Auditory memory is too short. The results become unreliable with much delay between samples.

Tim

 

[Gregadd]

Expereince and high resolution do count.

Hearing impairment aside the careful and experienced listeners are not hearing anything different from anyone else, they are just better at explaining what they are hearing and narrowing in on colourations and other problems very quickly.

We can extrpolate that as the differences become smaller the less expereincied with lower resolution tools dropout of the race.

 

[mep]

For example, the simple (and why are the graphs missing so much data?) measurements revealed in august 2012 stereophile for the $140K pair of dartzeel nhb-458 show less accuracy to the signal than other high end solid state amps yet, since they cost so much, to the reviewers ears, they are the best. A simple contradiction, inferior measurements, sounds better, so, the level of distortions are below audibility and it sounds better because it costs more than the other stuff....I think that has a great deal to do with it. And of course, Carver can make an amp with the same transfer function and power output for probably $20K retail (and make big money but there is the question of whether or not that would be copying ) if he wanted to.

Stereophile’s measurements showed THD+noise being 0.08%. Is that horrible? A plus or minus 0.25dB variation in frequency response with their simulated speaker load is pretty damn good. Frequency response was down <1dB at 200 kHz. A 10 kHz square wave at 8 ohms had “very short rise times and no trace of overshoot or ringing.” “Good Stuff!” proclaimed JA. Indeed. Look at the square wave graphs as they are almost text book perfect.

JA remarked several times that the NHB-458 “is a very quiet amplifier.” And, JA found that “even though the harmonic distortion was not as low as is usually found in modern solid-state designs (which is probably what you are hanging your hat on), perhaps of greater importance is the fact that distortion compromises low-order harmonics, and that the distortion doesn’t change its harmonic character with frequency.”

You need to find another amp to pick on. JA didn’t ridicule how this amp measured. Quite the contrary.

 

[microstrip]

Micro, please read the post again, I have no idea where you came up with your assertion.

OK, I ask directly : why do you think that you would need Carver to make a duplicate of the NHB-458? How can you be sure that he would be able to do it?

 

[treitz3]

Tom, while they may not all sound the same, I think we all agree the proper test would involve all of them played one after *** other, in the same room, with your head locked in a vice and blind. Your hearing and mine is way too variable to even come close to comparing unless done very rigiorously and even then, I don't trust our hearing to be better than for example the results of null tests at the same time, which could easily be done.

Hello, Tom. While I may see your POV and while I may appreciate your stance, I'm left with no other option than to disagree just based on experience. I have had over 8 of the amplifiers aforementioned in my rig, both at home and while featured at audio events. I trust my ears and I know what I hear. They are not the same. The TFM series was built to emulate the Silver 7's but as you go from the lowest to the highest of the amps, the sound changes with each amplifier and I'm not just talking about power reserve or bass. I do not need measurements to confirm my observations, even with the variables which in some cases, were none. Just the amplifier change and nothing else.

All due respect,

Tom

 

[treitz3]

House sound? Yes. The same? No. Which one is accurate?

Oh boy.

I'm quite sure even the Burmester folks could duke this one out. That said, I'll slide out now.....it all boils down to a matter preference, experience and where you are along your audio journey. The real good stuff comes when you get into the tubes....but it comes with a price.

Tom

 

[FrantzM]

House sound? Yes. The same? No. Which one is accurate?

Oh boy.

I'm quite sure even the Burmester folks could duke this one out. That said, I'll slide out now.....it all boils down to a matter preference, experience and where you are along your audio journey. The real good stuff comes when you get into the tubes....but it comes with a price.

Tom

You invited me!?! I found this part of your post funny

The real good stuff comes when you get into the tubes....but it comes with a price.

as opposed to SS?

 

[treitz3]

I apologize Frantz, please allow me to clarify. I should have stated that "With Carver gear, the real good stuff comes when you get into the tubes....but it comes with a price."

Most of Bob's SS amps came at a cost of under 2K. When you jump up to Carver's tube amps, the price starts at over 2K and can go up to 10X the price.

Tom

 

[microstrip]

I am simply pointing out that it is not price, its transfer function that audiophiles are jumping from amp to amp for, and if the measurements are not getting better, for this old boy, obviously they are not more accurate to the signal, and if you can't give me more accuracy for such an absurd price, then dont expect me to pay for a tone control. Thats just me.

And why do you think Carver could not duplicate the nhb-458? It would be easier to do than a tube amp with output transformer, which seriously degrades phase performance, in fact, a piece of cake for Carver.

I simply say that that transfer function of that $150,000 mono pair can be duplicated for probably 20 or 30 thousand for one pair, thus, of what value is a measurably less accurate amplifier with a non-linear transfer function, far behind what has been done in the past?

Here are what it boils down to IMO.

1) Prefer less accurate amplifiers that cost more (an amplifier should not be accurate as possible, it should introduce tone) Audiophile subjectivists may agree more here?

2) Prefer more accurate amplifiers that cost less (an amplifier shoud get out of the way and not be a tone control) Audiophile objectivists may agree more here?

Tom,

I also love nice words - transfer function is really elegant and sounds excellent. But, unhappily, as you have not defined the transfer function of the referred amplifiers (and I doubt you are able to do it), writing jumping between amplifiers or transfer functions is exactly the same.

Why do you say that a 150,000 amplifier can be duplicated for 20 or 30 thousand for one pair? Why not 2 or 3 thousand?

I have no facts to support it, but my intuition says that duplicating an amplifier having many colorations and poor measurements as the cj premier 3 would be easier than duplication a low coloration one having with low distortion keeping its sound character. It would be nice to have experts opinions on these.

Can you nominate a few amplifiers you consider really accurate and rank them in order we can guess what you call accurate amplifiers? Otherwise 1 and 2 are just vague statements - unless you give us the complete mathematical formulas of the transfer function. I have done it often in the past, but for much simpler systems.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

low coloration one having with low distortion keeping its sound character

Speaking of nice, elegant-sounding words we can't quite get a handle on! If distortion and coloration are low enough, what is this "character?" Can you nominate a few amps that are really accurate and have distinct character?

Tim

 

[microstrip]

Speaking of nice, elegant-sounding words we can't quite get a handle on! If distortion and coloration are low enough, what is this "character?" Can you nominate a few amps that are really accurate and have distinct character?

Tim

Tim,

OK, just some examples I know well - Krell EVO, Levinson (not the last generation, I have to look for the model ), Cello Duet 350, Classe CA401 , D'Agostino monos, Audio Research DS450.

Can you help Tom building the list I required?

 

[microstrip]

Tom ,

Can you correct your post? You are introducing text in my post and quoting it as if I have written it.
Thanks.

 

[Steve Williams]

Tom ,

Can you correct your post? You are introducing text in my post and quoting it as if I have written it.
Thanks.

I believe Tom is responding (in bold) to specific parts of your post, nothing more

 

[microstrip]

I believe Tom is responding (in bold) to specific parts of your post, nothing more

I understood it, but it is not clear for readers, as he also partially replies using the system facilities. He can correct it easily .

I still do not understand why some people insist on going on ignoring the proper quotation and default posting rules of this forum.

 

[Steve Williams]

I still do not understand why some people insist on going on ignoring the proper quotation and default posting rules of this forum.

must be right brain dominant I guess

 

[KeithR]

And I dont care what happened to Halcro, you can look at other, older, higher power amps, such as...bryston..

http://www.stereophile.com/content/bryston-28b-sst-monoblock-power-amplifier-measurements

at way less price points, more power, and see better measurements.

Price point vs measurements...thats what I was obviously talking about. And my point is made. With facts.

And, you are indeed aware, of course, that JA does indeed "cherry pick" measurement points on different amps, and thus you dont always see the same meaurement points for each amp in each class.

This is always my 'measurements don't mean everything' example-- I owned a Bryston 4BSST. Sounded like complete sh$%. Measured superb, tons of wattage, vanishing levels of alleged distortion, etc. Heck, they even send the specs in the box with it. Even Fremer agreed when he reviewed the monoblock version- the 7BSST.

I bought a Pass later on that made the Bryston sound broken. An X250.5 doesn't measure poorly.

 

[microstrip]

Its a good point. Character comes from the harmonic spread, ie, if you look for simple purposes at a twin tone IMD test in stereophile, some amps have a lot of odd harmonics, some even some different mixtures of both, and here is the...but...if those newly generated distortions are not low enough, they will introduce "character", and that would be the case obviously for a SET amp. And of course, character means inaccuracy! Character means preference, and there is no magic there except to those who have not had enough training in the art or science of electronic theory.

Last resource when everything else fails - point to the SET case. The analysis of harmonic spectra was studied long ago, and was found not to correlate with sound characteristics, excluding some exceptional cases of easy interpretation. There are many papers about it.

Anyway I loved to learn about your reductionist explanation for magic - people did not had enough training in the art or science of electronic theory. How did we not figure it? I still keep a copy of Horowitz and Will The Art of Electronics - I am going to train later.